Except in instances of actual incitement to violence or gross obscenity, I find the reporting of comments to be odious and underhanded. Claire runs this space and it's up to her to decide what is and is not acceptable. Heaven knows I read many things online that annoy or even outrage me. Sometimes I comment on them. Never would I demand they be censored.
Admittedly, the spate of antisemitic garbage of the kind polluting X is infuriating and troubling. But should it be banned? I don't know. Once could certainly argue that it constitutes incitement to violence. But then the same could be said of the antisemitism of the Left, on campus and elsewhere. If the stuff on X should be banned, then so should the claims of leftie academics and student activists that Israel is an apartheid state, that the Jews are committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs, etc. Hatred is indivisible is it not?
"If they have the exclusive right to interpret and enforce the guidelines, why am I being asked to do it?"
The answer, Claire - okay, a response - has everything to do with the legalese that binds and bounds the Internet.
While not the same, the two terms, "moderation" and "curation" (which appear soon after the snippet I quote), are similar. Any hateful speech or hurt or negative whatever would be the sole responsibility of the conduit provider; here, Substack. By instead offloading the curation decision to its content providers - in this instance, you, Claire - Substack abrogates its responsibility for the hateful or harmful whatever. The legal responsibility now belongs to the content provider, you. This difference between conduit and content was, up to ~20 years ago, used to be a big thing, Chinese firewalls put into place to protect their separation. But then conduits decided to offer content and the firewalls were dismantled. (It used to be either a) you offered the best conduit but were content-agnostic so as to create a home for the best content. Or b) you offered the best content and searched for the best conduit for your content. The two were mutually exclusive for each to achieve a superlative state of existence. No more.)
All of this is rather silly, when you pause for even a fleeting moment to think about it. After all, Substack nudged you in the direction it wants you to go, "Do this or lose access to Substack." A sharp attorney could argue Substack has assumed ownership of the problem; in effect, you became a Substack employee. Substack of course does not see it that way, or tries to convince you, the content providers, Substack the firm does not. Moral suasion sometimes works better when it arrives with those damnable Terms of Service. This whole moderation and curation thing has the conduit providers - Substack, et alii - tied in knots how to maintain their conduit, make beaucoup bucks... and not face legal peril for moderation and curation; for owning what Cosmopolitan Globalist's readers say in the comment replies... What Cosmopolitan Globalist's EiC writes on Substack.
The mono-directional agreement (Terms of Service) imposed by Large Tech on its users is onerous and repugnant. The problem for the content provider ensues when he or she wants to create his or her own conduit - in addition to creating the content. Yikes!
The grammarian is required to parse the footnotes because... well, the dirty little secret with a lot of www fine print is... it is borrowed (as in, copied and pasted) from other extant sites. Owners of a new site cobble together from 2 or 3 or 4 other sites' fine print to 'create' their own. A grammarian? Just add more cost to an already-scant budget. And anyway, who really knows whether their new site, www.thingamajig.com will ever hit critical mass? So they punt. And if they make it, then come the lawyers with their legalese.
I'm not entirely certain he's real. He just checks too many of the same boxes "Western media lies, you should check out this RT article" crowd that arose with Trump.
I enjoy reading comments from well-informed and thoughtful people, whether or not their views align with my own thinking, but I do sometimes enjoy reading a short diatribe or a feisty riposte when a reader (or Claire), takes issue with someone's statement or PoV. There are times when passion is called for in defense of a strongly-held principle. Often that's not the case very in typical comments sections, where people like to blow off steam -- so unlike here in CG!
If the reader who reported my comment to Substack would like to reveal their identity, we could engage in a spirited but polite debate right here in Claire’s comment section. I’m genuinely interested to know what about that comment was viewed as so outside the boundaries of propriety that it merited being reported.
I’m probably just an old fogey but I think it was better when the ACLU decided who to defend based on the legitimacy of the rights being claimed not the identity or political views of the claimant. I also think it was better when the ADL saw its mission as fighting antisemitism rather than acting as a self-appointed censor of social media platforms.
I remember fondly the days when tattletales were viewed with skepticism and the words “I’m gonna tell on you” were uttered only by little children.
Yeah I didn't read his last comment, but globalists show WigWag some love. He is a much more articulate and subdued right wing populist than any you're going to listen to on Fox or on Breitbart or anything like that. I thought I hated him when I first subscribed. I thought he was a noisome far right cretan and a zealot. But after talking to him from time to time, what I think now is: if only they were all like dear Wigwag. If only every right wing populist were as civilized and approachable as he is. He is proof that maybe in fact there is what you could call a school of thought behind what to most of us here see as a great big shitstorm of irrationalism, self-pity, inferiority, and resentment. I think Wigwag is fundamentally wrong that since Trump became president in 2016, therefore "the people have spoken." Or that even if it were the case that "the people have spoken," it follows that liberalism should be ripped out root and branch. This is obviously an absurdity, if not a license for anarchy and tyranny, and I abhor it with every cell of my being, as James Madison, Alexis de Toqueville, and Edmund Burke would have also been aghast. And it surprises me that someone as intelligent as Wigwag who doesn't seem particularly resentful either can arrive at these infantile conclusions regarding the unbounded deservingness of aggrieved citizens, and the capacity of the modern state to reward their infinite needs. That is to say nothing of the morality of the notion. Moreover that morally one could entertain such a glib and unthought-out proposition that to me is unthinkable, really gets to me. I think he must simply have a deep hatred of the neoliberal establishment and he simply has not followed his ideas to their conclusions, because he's having so much fun enjoying the spectacle and how it scares the elites. Because no one in their right mind would desire oligarchy if one knew that's where one's radical political thought inexorably led. But Wigwag is not just to be admired for being one of Claire's most avid readers. Any of you who can't stand him should appreciate how his presence challenges us to defend our beliefs in democratic capitalism. We should be grateful to Wigwag and we should be thanking him for his close-reading, his honesty and his engagement.
For what my august opinion is worth, you did right regarding WigWag's comments--all of them. If we're that terrified of differing opinions, we can only be products of union-public schools. Like others, though, I think your "too disgusting" threshold is too subjective, and you should lose that. I do disagree with the idea of yelling Parklife whenever we don't like someone's comments. Better to engage or ignore. Squawking aimlessly only wastes electrons and others' pixels.
Regarding Substack's <i>Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition</i>: this is highly objectionable to me. In the US, anyway, it's illegal to incite violence. Full stop. Substack's apparent decision to allow violence incitement, so long as it's not against Substack's precious categories, is reprehensible. Intended or not, that's what they've done with their enumerated list. "Behavior includes" is too limiting.
I disagree with Musk's decision regarding Ukraine and the purported naval assault that was blocked. The barbarian has already escalated the war of his invasion with his decision to engage in, and subsequent execution of, his terrorist attacks on civilians and children with his missile and rocket assaults. Successfully attacking the fleet in Sevastopol would go a ways toward reducing those attacks. And reduce the threat to Ukrainian grain shipments. Putin would respond with nuclear war? No. He made clear at the outset of his sensationalist rhetoric, in a moment of seriousness, that he'd go nuclear only if the existence of Russia were at risk. Nothing Putin has said or done since has indicated any alteration of that threshold. Losing to Ukraine in no way threatens Russian existence, and it only raises the risk to him personally by a little bit.
It's time to choose, and to take a stand, even for Musk. Although regarding Sevastopol and other distant targets, it may be that Ukraine inventiveness would make Starlink superfluous for such purposes. Their drones are quite remarkable, and growing ever more so.
Finally: How about a price list, or minimum bid, for your principles? Some might be worth the price. I double dog dare you.
In 1978, a group of Neo-Nazis announced their intention to assemble and march in Skokie, Illinois, a community that was home to a number of survivors of the Shoah.
At great risk to its reputation and financial security, the ACLU offered to defend the fascist group; a decision that led to remarkable consternation amongst many of its members. The ACLU did the right thing.
The ACLU justified its decision by pointing out that the same laws it cited to defend the Neo-Nazi’s rights to free speech and assembly were precisely the same laws the organization used to defend the right of civil rights groups to assemble and march in the south despite the suggestion that allowing these groups to march could lead to violence.
It is almost certain that the ACLU would make a different decision today. The ACLU is a fundamentally different organization today than it was then. People of good will can differ about which version, the old or the new, they prefer. I prefer the older version.
Like the ACLU, the ADL is a very different organization with very different aspirations than it had at its founding. In my view, the current version of the ADL has lost its way so completely that it is a mere shadow of its former self. I don’t think Musk’s lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, but if by some miracle it did, and the ADL was financially ruined, I don’t believe it would be missed.
Ironically, if the ACLU was presented with the case of the Neo-Nazis in Skokie today and it decided to defend their right to march, I think it’s almost certain that today’s ADL would lambast the ACLU as a hate group. That’s how far American democracy and civil discourse has deteriorated.
It is true that Elon Musk’s Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment, but Musk has stated that his goal for Twitter is to serve as a global public square. To facilitate that, he rightly wants to keep censorship to a minimum and he doesn’t want to employ cadres of employees who’s job it is weed out bigoted tweets no matter how despicable. I think Musk is right; once you empower the censors, their mandate inevitably expands and the censorship regime becomes all-encompassing. We know this is true because it’s precisely what happened with pre-Musk Twitter, especially with American intelligence agencies and the FBI intimidating Twitter’s censors to eliminate content the Government didn’t like.
Putting up with the availability of bigoted comments (that no one needs to read) is a small price to pay for the creation of a forum where all opinions can be expressed. Cancel culture is bad; the censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys.
Claire, there are more Substacks and online publications where my views are in the majority than I can shake a stick at. I read some of them but I comment at none of them. The Cosmopolitan Globalist is the only site where I write comments. Partly it’s because I don’t want to spend my entire life writing comments; I mostly do it for the fun of it. More importantly, it’s far more interesting to engage people that I disagree with than I agree with.
Although I disagree with you and some of your readers about many things, a major reason I subscribe is because your writing is so good; brilliant, actually.
I am neither a Musk fan nor a Musk hater, but I think he was in a no-win situation. If indeed the result of the Ukranian attack had been a nuclear retaliation, we would have had 1) nuclear war, and 2) no end of stories in the NYT about how Musk's interference led to nuclear war. No, we didn't elect Musk, but the real question is why would Ukraine need to rely on him instead of its allies in the first place?
“I would not want my late grandmother to know I’m associated in any way with someone who would say such a thing.”
That's very subjective, both on my part, and how I perceive my late grandmother. I'm reasonable certain that there are essays that you write, that I think are good essays, but are such that I wouldn't want my late grandmother to know I'm associated in any way with someone who would say such a thing.
On Vexatious Comments
Except in instances of actual incitement to violence or gross obscenity, I find the reporting of comments to be odious and underhanded. Claire runs this space and it's up to her to decide what is and is not acceptable. Heaven knows I read many things online that annoy or even outrage me. Sometimes I comment on them. Never would I demand they be censored.
Admittedly, the spate of antisemitic garbage of the kind polluting X is infuriating and troubling. But should it be banned? I don't know. Once could certainly argue that it constitutes incitement to violence. But then the same could be said of the antisemitism of the Left, on campus and elsewhere. If the stuff on X should be banned, then so should the claims of leftie academics and student activists that Israel is an apartheid state, that the Jews are committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs, etc. Hatred is indivisible is it not?
"If they have the exclusive right to interpret and enforce the guidelines, why am I being asked to do it?"
The answer, Claire - okay, a response - has everything to do with the legalese that binds and bounds the Internet.
While not the same, the two terms, "moderation" and "curation" (which appear soon after the snippet I quote), are similar. Any hateful speech or hurt or negative whatever would be the sole responsibility of the conduit provider; here, Substack. By instead offloading the curation decision to its content providers - in this instance, you, Claire - Substack abrogates its responsibility for the hateful or harmful whatever. The legal responsibility now belongs to the content provider, you. This difference between conduit and content was, up to ~20 years ago, used to be a big thing, Chinese firewalls put into place to protect their separation. But then conduits decided to offer content and the firewalls were dismantled. (It used to be either a) you offered the best conduit but were content-agnostic so as to create a home for the best content. Or b) you offered the best content and searched for the best conduit for your content. The two were mutually exclusive for each to achieve a superlative state of existence. No more.)
All of this is rather silly, when you pause for even a fleeting moment to think about it. After all, Substack nudged you in the direction it wants you to go, "Do this or lose access to Substack." A sharp attorney could argue Substack has assumed ownership of the problem; in effect, you became a Substack employee. Substack of course does not see it that way, or tries to convince you, the content providers, Substack the firm does not. Moral suasion sometimes works better when it arrives with those damnable Terms of Service. This whole moderation and curation thing has the conduit providers - Substack, et alii - tied in knots how to maintain their conduit, make beaucoup bucks... and not face legal peril for moderation and curation; for owning what Cosmopolitan Globalist's readers say in the comment replies... What Cosmopolitan Globalist's EiC writes on Substack.
The mono-directional agreement (Terms of Service) imposed by Large Tech on its users is onerous and repugnant. The problem for the content provider ensues when he or she wants to create his or her own conduit - in addition to creating the content. Yikes!
The grammarian is required to parse the footnotes because... well, the dirty little secret with a lot of www fine print is... it is borrowed (as in, copied and pasted) from other extant sites. Owners of a new site cobble together from 2 or 3 or 4 other sites' fine print to 'create' their own. A grammarian? Just add more cost to an already-scant budget. And anyway, who really knows whether their new site, www.thingamajig.com will ever hit critical mass? So they punt. And if they make it, then come the lawyers with their legalese.
I'm not entirely certain he's real. He just checks too many of the same boxes "Western media lies, you should check out this RT article" crowd that arose with Trump.
But I wouldn't report a post for sophistry.
I enjoy reading comments from well-informed and thoughtful people, whether or not their views align with my own thinking, but I do sometimes enjoy reading a short diatribe or a feisty riposte when a reader (or Claire), takes issue with someone's statement or PoV. There are times when passion is called for in defense of a strongly-held principle. Often that's not the case very in typical comments sections, where people like to blow off steam -- so unlike here in CG!
If the reader who reported my comment to Substack would like to reveal their identity, we could engage in a spirited but polite debate right here in Claire’s comment section. I’m genuinely interested to know what about that comment was viewed as so outside the boundaries of propriety that it merited being reported.
I’m probably just an old fogey but I think it was better when the ACLU decided who to defend based on the legitimacy of the rights being claimed not the identity or political views of the claimant. I also think it was better when the ADL saw its mission as fighting antisemitism rather than acting as a self-appointed censor of social media platforms.
I remember fondly the days when tattletales were viewed with skepticism and the words “I’m gonna tell on you” were uttered only by little children.
Yeah I didn't read his last comment, but globalists show WigWag some love. He is a much more articulate and subdued right wing populist than any you're going to listen to on Fox or on Breitbart or anything like that. I thought I hated him when I first subscribed. I thought he was a noisome far right cretan and a zealot. But after talking to him from time to time, what I think now is: if only they were all like dear Wigwag. If only every right wing populist were as civilized and approachable as he is. He is proof that maybe in fact there is what you could call a school of thought behind what to most of us here see as a great big shitstorm of irrationalism, self-pity, inferiority, and resentment. I think Wigwag is fundamentally wrong that since Trump became president in 2016, therefore "the people have spoken." Or that even if it were the case that "the people have spoken," it follows that liberalism should be ripped out root and branch. This is obviously an absurdity, if not a license for anarchy and tyranny, and I abhor it with every cell of my being, as James Madison, Alexis de Toqueville, and Edmund Burke would have also been aghast. And it surprises me that someone as intelligent as Wigwag who doesn't seem particularly resentful either can arrive at these infantile conclusions regarding the unbounded deservingness of aggrieved citizens, and the capacity of the modern state to reward their infinite needs. That is to say nothing of the morality of the notion. Moreover that morally one could entertain such a glib and unthought-out proposition that to me is unthinkable, really gets to me. I think he must simply have a deep hatred of the neoliberal establishment and he simply has not followed his ideas to their conclusions, because he's having so much fun enjoying the spectacle and how it scares the elites. Because no one in their right mind would desire oligarchy if one knew that's where one's radical political thought inexorably led. But Wigwag is not just to be admired for being one of Claire's most avid readers. Any of you who can't stand him should appreciate how his presence challenges us to defend our beliefs in democratic capitalism. We should be grateful to Wigwag and we should be thanking him for his close-reading, his honesty and his engagement.
And oh, yeah: what do you mean you don't read every jot and tittle of our comments!? What else you got going on?
Eric Hines
For what my august opinion is worth, you did right regarding WigWag's comments--all of them. If we're that terrified of differing opinions, we can only be products of union-public schools. Like others, though, I think your "too disgusting" threshold is too subjective, and you should lose that. I do disagree with the idea of yelling Parklife whenever we don't like someone's comments. Better to engage or ignore. Squawking aimlessly only wastes electrons and others' pixels.
Regarding Substack's <i>Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition</i>: this is highly objectionable to me. In the US, anyway, it's illegal to incite violence. Full stop. Substack's apparent decision to allow violence incitement, so long as it's not against Substack's precious categories, is reprehensible. Intended or not, that's what they've done with their enumerated list. "Behavior includes" is too limiting.
I disagree with Musk's decision regarding Ukraine and the purported naval assault that was blocked. The barbarian has already escalated the war of his invasion with his decision to engage in, and subsequent execution of, his terrorist attacks on civilians and children with his missile and rocket assaults. Successfully attacking the fleet in Sevastopol would go a ways toward reducing those attacks. And reduce the threat to Ukrainian grain shipments. Putin would respond with nuclear war? No. He made clear at the outset of his sensationalist rhetoric, in a moment of seriousness, that he'd go nuclear only if the existence of Russia were at risk. Nothing Putin has said or done since has indicated any alteration of that threshold. Losing to Ukraine in no way threatens Russian existence, and it only raises the risk to him personally by a little bit.
It's time to choose, and to take a stand, even for Musk. Although regarding Sevastopol and other distant targets, it may be that Ukraine inventiveness would make Starlink superfluous for such purposes. Their drones are quite remarkable, and growing ever more so.
Finally: How about a price list, or minimum bid, for your principles? Some might be worth the price. I double dog dare you.
Eric Hines
If your mid-teens mockney memetics are rusty, this link explains a bit more about parklife: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/parklife-emerges-as-the-internet-s-favourite-way-to-mock-russell-brand-9838182.html
Somehow feels apt that Brand himself has drifted from street-left to conspiracist right, aided by Covid lockdowns.
In 1978, a group of Neo-Nazis announced their intention to assemble and march in Skokie, Illinois, a community that was home to a number of survivors of the Shoah.
At great risk to its reputation and financial security, the ACLU offered to defend the fascist group; a decision that led to remarkable consternation amongst many of its members. The ACLU did the right thing.
The ACLU justified its decision by pointing out that the same laws it cited to defend the Neo-Nazi’s rights to free speech and assembly were precisely the same laws the organization used to defend the right of civil rights groups to assemble and march in the south despite the suggestion that allowing these groups to march could lead to violence.
It is almost certain that the ACLU would make a different decision today. The ACLU is a fundamentally different organization today than it was then. People of good will can differ about which version, the old or the new, they prefer. I prefer the older version.
Like the ACLU, the ADL is a very different organization with very different aspirations than it had at its founding. In my view, the current version of the ADL has lost its way so completely that it is a mere shadow of its former self. I don’t think Musk’s lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, but if by some miracle it did, and the ADL was financially ruined, I don’t believe it would be missed.
Ironically, if the ACLU was presented with the case of the Neo-Nazis in Skokie today and it decided to defend their right to march, I think it’s almost certain that today’s ADL would lambast the ACLU as a hate group. That’s how far American democracy and civil discourse has deteriorated.
It is true that Elon Musk’s Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment, but Musk has stated that his goal for Twitter is to serve as a global public square. To facilitate that, he rightly wants to keep censorship to a minimum and he doesn’t want to employ cadres of employees who’s job it is weed out bigoted tweets no matter how despicable. I think Musk is right; once you empower the censors, their mandate inevitably expands and the censorship regime becomes all-encompassing. We know this is true because it’s precisely what happened with pre-Musk Twitter, especially with American intelligence agencies and the FBI intimidating Twitter’s censors to eliminate content the Government didn’t like.
Putting up with the availability of bigoted comments (that no one needs to read) is a small price to pay for the creation of a forum where all opinions can be expressed. Cancel culture is bad; the censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys.
Claire, there are more Substacks and online publications where my views are in the majority than I can shake a stick at. I read some of them but I comment at none of them. The Cosmopolitan Globalist is the only site where I write comments. Partly it’s because I don’t want to spend my entire life writing comments; I mostly do it for the fun of it. More importantly, it’s far more interesting to engage people that I disagree with than I agree with.
Although I disagree with you and some of your readers about many things, a major reason I subscribe is because your writing is so good; brilliant, actually.
The commenters here are great. The worst comment section in the country, in my view, is the Washington Post's. The level of hatred is truly troubling.
I am neither a Musk fan nor a Musk hater, but I think he was in a no-win situation. If indeed the result of the Ukranian attack had been a nuclear retaliation, we would have had 1) nuclear war, and 2) no end of stories in the NYT about how Musk's interference led to nuclear war. No, we didn't elect Musk, but the real question is why would Ukraine need to rely on him instead of its allies in the first place?
“I would not want my late grandmother to know I’m associated in any way with someone who would say such a thing.”
That's very subjective, both on my part, and how I perceive my late grandmother. I'm reasonable certain that there are essays that you write, that I think are good essays, but are such that I wouldn't want my late grandmother to know I'm associated in any way with someone who would say such a thing.
World view is subjective.
Musk was a hero when he gave Ukraine Starlink (after Russia deliberately tried to silence Ukrainian communications).
Musk became a goat when he (apparently) shut down some portions of Ukrainian communications.
You get the bad with the good.
I notice that the Ukrainian government has not told Musk to take his terminals out.
That would suggest that on balance, they see Musk's Starlink as a net positive.
Genius! It's only week two and I feel like I got more than my (discount annual subs) money's worth already.
And I'm with WigWag (and you) - you pays, you gets to comment. And I've always followed people who are worth disagreeing with.
There's No Other Way...